9/11 documentary now

  • Thread starter Thread starter worsleyweb
  • Start date Start date
Jim Tolmie's Underpants said:
The penthouse droping just prior to the exterior is indicative of controlled demolition, whereby the interior columns are severed just a fraction of a second prior to the exterior, so as to create an inward pull on the exterior and keep the debris contained within the building’s footprint.
Click to expand...
The debris wasn't contained within the building's footprint though. That's another common fallacy that is repeated as gospel, just like the "freefall" nonsense.
 
Manchester_lalala said:
All of that has already been answered in this thread. The building wasn't hit by a plane, it was hit by the north tower on the way down, causing critical structural damage,
Click to expand...

"The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse."
- https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

then a huge fire started.
Click to expand...

Even NIST makes no mention of any "huge" fires. They even go so far as to admit "only the fires on some of the lower floors —7 through 9 and 11 through 13— burned out of control."
 
Last edited:
Dubai Blue said:
The debris wasn't contained within the building's footprint though. That's another common fallacy that is repeated as gospel,
Click to expand...

"the collapse of WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field."
- https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

wtc7_pile.jpg


just like the "freefall" nonsense.
Click to expand...

"This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft)
- http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
 
Manchester_lalala said:
All of that has already been answered in this thread. The building wasn't hit by a plane, it was hit by the north tower on the way down, causing critical structural damage, then a huge fire started. Larry Silversteins comments about pulling actually came from the chief of fdny, he didn't want anymors lives being taken so he pulled his guys from the building, which was deemed a good decision.
Click to expand...

Your explanation doesn't stand the slightest scrutiny. Damage caused to Building 7 by the North Tower would not cause the tower to collapse in the manner that it did. It's nothing more than nonsense fed to a gullible public, as is your explanation of Lassy Silverstein's comments. He didn't say "pull them" he said "pull it" which is demolition speak to bring down the building.

So let's see what we've got:-
1. A building collapses in what demolition experts say is a textbook controlled demolition.
2. The materials that are available as fuel in an office fire don't come close to the required temperature to cause the structure of Building 7 to fail in the manner it did.
3. These buildings are designed to withstand the impact from a Boeing 707. Debris from the North Tower is inconsequential in comparison.
4. We've got Silverstein himself on record giving instructions to "pull it". Demolition slang to bring it down.
5. No other steel frame building in the world has ever collapsed in such a manner from fire.
6. The BBC reporting the collapse of Building 7 twenty minutes before it actually collapsed.

Some people will believe anything the mainstream media tell them. Try thinking for yourself.
 
Jim Tolmie's Underpants said:
"the collapse of WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field."
- https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

wtc7_pile.jpg




"This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft)
- http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
Click to expand...
Yes, a small part of the outer structure fell at freefall speed for, I think, about 2.5 seconds. But the "truthers" would have us believe the entire building fell at that rate, which simply didn't happen. And there is nothing suspicious about a section of the outer wall falling at that speed, because by the time it collapsed, the building was literally an empty shell.

So which one is it now - a relatively small debris field or within its own footprint? Because they're not the same thing. Several buildings around WTC7 sustained serious damage as a result of the collapse, so there is categorically no truth to the theory that it fell within its own footprint.
 
Paul_Powers_Tash said:
Your explanation doesn't stand the slightest scrutiny. Damage caused to Building 7 by the North Tower would not cause the tower to collapse in the manner that it did. It's nothing more than nonsense fed to a gullible public, as is your explanation of Lassy Silverstein's comments. He didn't say "pull them" he said "pull it" which is demolition speak to bring down the building.

So let's see what we've got:-
1. A building collapses in what demolition experts say is a textbook controlled demolition.
2. The materials that are available as fuel in an office fire don't come close to the required temperature to cause the structure of Building 7 to fail in the manner it did.
3. These buildings are designed to withstand the impact from a Boeing 707. Debris from the North Tower is inconsequential in comparison.
4. We've got Silverstein himself on record giving instructions to "pull it". Demolition slang to bring it down.
5. No other steel frame building in the world has ever collapsed in such a manner from fire.
6. The BBC reporting the collapse of Building 7 twenty minutes before it actually collapsed.

Some people will believe anything the mainstream media tell them. Try thinking for yourself.
Click to expand...
Try reading this which was posted by one of your fellow conspiracy proponents to prove one of his points.
https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation
 
Paul_Powers_Tash said:
Your explanation doesn't stand the slightest scrutiny. Damage caused to Building 7 by the North Tower would not cause the tower to collapse in the manner that it did. It's nothing more than nonsense fed to a gullible public, as is your explanation of Lassy Silverstein's comments. He didn't say "pull them" he said "pull it" which is demolition speak to bring down the building.

So let's see what we've got:-
1. A building collapses in what demolition experts say is a textbook controlled demolition.
2. The materials that are available as fuel in an office fire don't come close to the required temperature to cause the structure of Building 7 to fail in the manner it did.
3. These buildings are designed to withstand the impact from a Boeing 707. Debris from the North Tower is inconsequential in comparison.
4. We've got Silverstein himself on record giving instructions to "pull it". Demolition slang to bring it down.
5. No other steel frame building in the world has ever collapsed in such a manner from fire.
6. The BBC reporting the collapse of Building 7 twenty minutes before it actually collapsed.

Some people will believe anything the mainstream media tell them. Try thinking for yourself.
Click to expand...
Lots of other steel framed buildings have failed due to fire, including a sizeable chunk of WTC 5. And "pull it" isn't demolition slang for bringing a building down with explosives; it's the term used for literally pulling a building down with cables.

All your other questions can be answered by the video on page 44 but you're choosing to just dismiss it all.
 
Paul_Powers_Tash said:
Your explanation doesn't stand the slightest scrutiny. Damage caused to Building 7 by the North Tower would not cause the tower to collapse in the manner that it did. It's nothing more than nonsense fed to a gullible public, as is your explanation of Lassy Silverstein's comments. He didn't say "pull them" he said "pull it" which is demolition speak to bring down the building.

So let's see what we've got:-
1. A building collapses in what demolition experts say is a textbook controlled demolition.
2. The materials that are available as fuel in an office fire don't come close to the required temperature to cause the structure of Building 7 to fail in the manner it did.
3. These buildings are designed to withstand the impact from a Boeing 707. Debris from the North Tower is inconsequential in comparison.
4. We've got Silverstein himself on record giving instructions to "pull it". Demolition slang to bring it down.
5. No other steel frame building in the world has ever collapsed in such a manner from fire.
6. The BBC reporting the collapse of Building 7 twenty minutes before it actually collapsed.

Some people will believe anything the mainstream media tell them. Try thinking for yourself.
Click to expand...

You really don't see the irony of your last point, do you? As far as I can see, in this thread it is the ones who don't believe it was an inside job that are prepared to listen to all sides and evidence whilst the truthers just keep repeating the same rhetoric despite the evidence against them.

Btw, I have always thought it was an inside job to one degree or another, until I saw the WTC 7 debunk video where the damage to the building is so vast and visible from the south side that you can clearly see why it would collapse. Not to mention the fact that the inside of the building was practically an empty shell.

Your point 6 about the media reporting it before it came down is now the only thing that concerns me with WTC 7. And the Pentagon attack is suspicious and no debunking videos I've seen can change my mind on that one.
 
jay_mcfc said:
You really don't see the irony of your last point, do you? As far as I can see, in this thread it is the ones who don't believe it was an inside job that are prepared to listen to all sides and evidence whilst the truthers just keep repeating the same rhetoric despite the evidence against them.

Btw, I have always thought it was an inside job to one degree or another, until I saw the WTC 7 debunk video where the damage to the building is so vast and visible from the south side that you can clearly see why it would collapse. Not to mention the fact that the inside of the building was practically an empty shell.

Your point 6 about the media reporting it before it came down is now the only thing that concerns me with WTC 7. And the Pentagon attack is suspicious and no debunking videos I've seen can change my mind on that one.
Click to expand...
What's suspicious about the Pentagon attack?
 
west didsblue said:
What's suspicious about the Pentagon attack?
Click to expand...
Come on, mate, let's not go there! There's nothing I can say that's not already in this thread a million times. All I'll say is that I watched three debunk videos and none of them convinced me it definitely wasn't an inside job. That's not me saying it was, but that there are many things unanswered.
 
jay_mcfc said:
Come on, mate, let's not go there! There's nothing I can say that's not already in this thread a million times. All I'll say is that I watched three debunk videos and none of them convinced me it definitely wasn't an inside job. That's not me saying it was, but that there are many things unanswered.
Click to expand...
Ok I won't go there other than to say there were dozens of witnesses who saw an aircraft crash into it.
 
jay_mcfc said:
You really don't see the irony of your last point, do you? As far as I can see, in this thread it is the ones who don't believe it was an inside job that are prepared to listen to all sides and evidence whilst the truthers just keep repeating the same rhetoric despite the evidence against them.

Btw, I have always thought it was an inside job to one degree or another, until I saw the WTC 7 debunk video where the damage to the building is so vast and visible from the south side that you can clearly see why it would collapse. Not to mention the fact that the inside of the building was practically an empty shell.

Your point 6 about the media reporting it before it came down is now the only thing that concerns me with WTC 7. And the Pentagon attack is suspicious and no debunking videos I've seen can change my mind on that one.
We're going round in circles here. It's not hard to digest that wtc 7 was hit by falling debris from the north tower, which resulted in structural damage and fires. Theres a picture of the south side of the wtc 7 totally fucked with smoke coming out of it. It's on that video you posted, that itself tells its own story.

Paul_Powers_Tash said:
4. We've got Silverstein himself on record giving instructions to "pull it". Demolition slang to bring it down.
Click to expand...

Fuck sake, not this again.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
TravisBickle said:

In my opinion there is no way fragile aeroplane wings should rip apart huge steel girders like it did. But what the fuck do I know!
Click to expand...

Mass x Velocity = Force. It's the same reason why a ping pong ball can go all the way through a table tennis bat if fired hard enough. And why water can cut through steel. Also, the wings weren't fragile, they were full of fuel.

All that video proves is why so little of the plane was found at the Pentagon.
 
Dubai Blue said:
Mass x Velocity = Force. It's the same reason why a ping pong ball can go all the way through a table tennis bat if fired hard enough. And why water can cut through steel. Also, the wings weren't fragile, they were full of fuel.

All that video proves is why so little of the plane was found at the Pentagon.
Click to expand...
Well Mass x Velocity didn't do that plane any favours!
The wing tips of a plane are very thin/fragile but cut though steel not at supersonic speed but max 400mph no problem!
 
TravisBickle said:
Well Mass x Velocity didn't do that plane any favours!
The wing tips of a plane are very thin/fragile but cut though steel not at supersonic speed but max 400mph no problem!
Click to expand...
When fully loaded that plane in the video weighs 27,000kg vs. 179,000kg for a fully loaded 767. It clearly had no fuel in it, so you can reduce that weight even further. It won't have been travelling at anywhere near 500mph, and it smashed into a 10ft thick reinforced concrete block. It really has no relevance whatsoever to the discussion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top